Resources

In CR Construction v Barclays Bank & Or [2026] EWHC 202 (TCC) the Court considered wide ranging arguments in support of an injunction seeking to restrain a call on a Bond by the Employer. The arguments included questions as to the validity of the Bond call, whether the Main Contract (a JCT D&B 2016) in some way precluded a call on the Bond, whether the fact that the Main Contract was allegedly repudiated precluded a call on the Bond and whether set-off also precluded a call on the Bond. The arguments failed and the application was rejected. Sean Wilken KC instructed by Phil Withey and Jake Parker–Bishop at Addleshaw Goddard acted for the Employer on the application.You can read the full judgment here.

High Tech commenced an adjudication claiming the balance of £2,142,623.55 allegedly due for construction works undertaken at a site in North London pursuant to a JCT D&B Sub-contract. WLP's case was that there was no binding JCT based contract and that the suggestion this was the basis of the contractual arrangement between the parties was a sham and fradulent. The Adjudicator stated that he had not been presented with the evidence which would allow him to reach the conclusion that the alleged JCT based contract was fradulent and that he therefore saw no reason to resign as a result of WLP's challenge to his jurisdiction. The Adjudicator's Decision awarded High Tech the entire sum claimed with interest. High Tech sought and obtained a without notice freezing injunction, which was subsequently upheld by Constable J [freezing injunction case]. It also sought to enforce the Decision. By the date of the enforcement hearing on 13th January 2026, WLP had provided considerably more evidence to support its assertions.  High Tech accepted that WLP's case that the alleged JCT based contract was fradulent stood a real prospect of success (in the context of the test for summary judgment).…

The TCC granted the application to lift the automatic suspension on the award of a new blood establishment computer system contract to GPI. The court held that damages would have been an adequate remedy for MAK, given the modest financial and reputational impact of the contract, while the loss of the opportunity to introduce the new system within the expected timescales was not a loss that could have been adequately remedied by damages. BackgroundThis application arose out of the procurement by the Welsh Blood Service (“WBS”) of a new blood establishment computer system (“BECS”). WBS was an operating division of the defendant Trust.WBS was the body responsible for the supply of blood and blood components to NHS Wales. It had a statutory responsibility to collect and maintain detailed records relating to individual blood donors; the blood-testing process; the processing of donated blood; and the storage and supply of all donated blood components. Since the 1980s, these records had been held in a digital system which managed the process and infrastructure.The Claimant (“MAK”) had been the incumbent supplier since 2015, deploying its eProgesa software. The procurement process began…